A bill for the relief of Alfredo Plascencia Lopez and Maria Del Refugio Plascencia.

Mr. President, two weeks ago, the company Hydroform USA, its subsidiary Temperform, and three company managers were indicted for conspiracy and making false statements. This is just the latest event in

a long horror story that may still threaten the safety of both military and civilian aviation. And it raises serious questions, yet again, about our ability and commitment to root out defense fraud that attacks our taxpayers and our troops.

The story is told at length in a special issue of Defense Week dated July 3 and written by John Donnelly. It starts with a company called West Coast Aluminum Heat-Treating Company, which had a plant in La Mirada, CA. Many aluminum parts on airplanes and rockets are heat- threaten to stengthen the parts, reduce corrosion, and prevent cracking and fatigue. West Coast was paid to do this by a large number of airplane manufacturers and suppliers. But beginning in 1981, they did the heat treatment for far less time and at lower temperatures than required. They didn't falsified testing of the parts. This fraud went on undetected, on hundreds of thousands of parts, for fifteen years. The parts ended up on a long list of military airplanes, helicopters, and rockets from Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and other contractors, as well as on many commercial planes and helicopters from Boeing, Airbus, and other manufacturers. In 1996, a West Coast foreman finally blew the whistle to Boeing.

Boeing, observed by the Federal Aviation Administration, eventually tested 1,634 parts for hardness and electrical conductivity. They found that 18 percent of the parts were critical, and that 11 percent of the parts did not meet specifications because of the fraudulent heat treatment. Tests on hundreds of other parts had similar results. But these tests may not reveal the full extent of the problems. Other, more informative tests that destroy the parts are needed to assess heat treatment well. And even parts supposedly tested may not be good, although Boeing claimed that subcontractors had tested many parts, the FAA found that six of the subcontractors could not document such testing; the other three subcontractors they contacted did have test records showing the parts were good, but when the FAA tested the parts, they found the parts did not in fact meet specifications.

Even though the fraud was revealed in 1996 and Boeing disqualified West Coast as a vendor in 1997, it took another year before Boeing and the Government bothered to let other customers know that the parts could be defective. They finally issued alerts on the Government- Industry Data Exchange Program called GIDEP, in 1998. For those two years other defense contractors continued to use West Coast. In addition, the alert that Boeing finally issued focused on ``discrepancies'' in paperwork, and claimed that the parts were fine.

Government oversight was equally weak. Although the FAA concluded that Boeing had violated federal regulations because it did not adequately supervise its subcontractors, it said the statute of limitations had expired and hence it could not pursue enforcement action. Worse, the Defense Logistics Agency wrote reports suggesting that West Coast-treated parts were fine, based on a database of 253,736 parts. But they did not actually know which parts were from West Coast, and they knew that many of the parts in the database were not even made of aluminum.

In 1998, West Coast was sold, and in 2000 its two executives were convicted, sentenced, and fined. The plant was bought by Temperform, which proceeded to commit the same fraud on tens of thousands of additional parts. It has been said that history repeats itself, first as tragedy and then as farce. The Temperform replay of West Coast would be amusing if it weren't still tragic. Temperform fired the West Coast employees so that Boeing would approve the company as a vendor, then promptly rehired them. The same heat-treating fraud continued undetected, and another employee finally blew the whistle again in 2000. Despite the plant's history, Boeing did not audit Temperform until this time, and then allegedly found 37 deficiencies in their quality assurance processes.

To this date, neither Boeing nor anyone else has ever issued a GIDEP alert to let other companies know of the Temperform fraud. A Government safety alert, issued only in 2002, went only to Government agencies. Thus, Lockheed Martin continued to buy parts from Temperform for more than two years. Again, the Government accused Boeing of mismanagement but declined to do anything about it. The plant again was sold in 2002, and, as I mentioned, three company executives were recently indicted. One of those three, the manager in charge of heat-treating procedures, was one of the West Coast employees who were rehired.

That is all history. But I have not yet explained a key reason why this remains a continuing threat. Almost all of the testing of parts I mentioned was of commercial parts. The military services claim that they cannot identify which parts were treated by a particular company, even for safety critical parts. Typically major weapon system programs are now managed by private contractors, which then have a large number of subcontractors supplying parts. West Coast and Temperform contracted with many of those subcontractors. Apparently we cannot negotiate this maze to find which parts, even safety critical parts, were fraudulently treated. Thus, few military parts have been tested, and if they were found unsatisfactory, it is not clear how they would be replaced.

This is not the first time this problem has come up. Not long ago the Pentagon bought 780,000 chemical protective suits from a company called Isratex. We cannot find 250,000 of those suits either. And last year the Navy could not find 42,000 defective oxygen masks.

My amendment attempts at least to examine several of these systemic issues. It requests that the Secretary of Defense report back to Congress by March 31, 2004, on efforts to find and test the parts that have been improperly heat-treated, and on notification of other customers that their parts may be defective. The report also is to look at how to implement a system for tracking safety-critical parts, and at standards and procedures for notification on future safety issues.

The amendment also asks the General Accounting Office to submit a report on issues regarding the prime contractor system that may be partly at fault here. The GAO is to look at both the oversight of subcontractors by the prime contractor--which is what they are paid to do--and the oversight and enforcement of prime contractors by the Department of Defense.

Hunderds of thousands of aluminum parts that are in our airplanes and helicopters today have not been properly strengthened. Many of these parts are safety-critical. Millions of people, civilian and military, may be at risk if a plane crashes due to a failure of one of these parts. We are at risk not only because of the fraud, but also because of the failure all the way down the line--by small subcontractors, huge plane manufacturers, and the Government--to catch the fraud, stop it in a timely manner, notify others at risk, track or test the parts, or hold anyone accountable for the oversight failures.

We must do better. This amendment is a small step toward fixing the problems, and I intend to pursue this until I am confident such abuse cannot happen again.

amendment no. 1316

Mr. President, I was inadvertently off the floor when the manager of the bill offered a managers' amendment that dealt with providing certain reparations to former U.S. servicemen who were held captive in Japan during World War II and were used as slave laborers in Japanese companies during the duration of the war.

Had I been on the floor at the time that amendment came up, I would have spoken about it and might have taken exception to its inclusion. I would have done so not because I do not think the former slave laborers of Japan deserve compensation, but it is coming from the wrong source.

Two years ago, Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire and I offered an amendment that basically would have stopped the State Department and the Department of Justice from using taxpayer dollars to defend the interests of Japanese companies. That passed 58 to 34 in the Senate. The House passed the identical amendment in July in an overwhelming 393 to 33 vote, same provision, both Chambers. Incredibly, it was stripped out of conference.

Since then, the State Department has been wielding its influence on behalf of these Japanese companies, not the World War II POWs. I think this is unconscionable. The provision added tonight, basically, as I understand it, would give up to $10,000 to each former POW slave laborer, but that money comes from the taxpayers of America. Senator Smith and I said that money ought to come from the Japanese companies that are still in existence. Some of them are multinational, some of them huge, such as Mitsubishi, that actually used American slave laborers during World War II. Many of these

POWs were packed into cargo holds from the Philippines.

Four thousand American servicemen lost their lives during the Bataan death march. Those who survived were shipped off to Japan for more than 3 years to serve as slave labor for private Japanese companies. Throughout the war, Americans worked in mines, factories, shipyards, and steel mills, labored each day for as long as 10 hours a day in dangerous working conditions. They were beaten on a regular basis.

Frank Exline of Pleasant Hill, IA, was one of those POWs, a Navy seaman, who was captured April 9, 1942.

Frank Smith worked 39 months for Japanese companies in Osaka, Japan. He began on the docks unloading rock salt and keg iron and later found himself toiling in the rice fields. He was fed two rice balls a day and given very little water. During his time with the Japanese companies, he was tortured and beaten once for taking a potato. Upon being caught, the potato was shoved in his mouth and he stood at rigid attention, in the Sun, for 45 minutes. If he moved or blinked, he was beaten.

There was Frank Cardamon, of Des Moines, a marine stationed in China. His ship was attacked, and he was captured at Corregidor and sent to Japan to work in an auto parts factory and in the mines and was never paid for his work. He was fed two cups of rice a day. He went from 160 pounds to 68 pounds in 3 years of capture.

Margaret Baker, of Oelwein, IA, wrote a letter about her late husband, Charles Baker. Charles Baker, an Army private, survived the Bataan death march. He was sent to work in the mines for 3 years in Japan. He died at age 54 in 1973.

In her letter she wrote: He suffered many injuries and hunger on the death march and during his imprisonment. We feel his early death was caused by the suffering he endured while working long hours in the mines without food, rest, and clothing.

These men and 700 of their fellow prisoners of war and their families have been trying to seek long-delayed justice over the past several years. They have been to court to demand compensation from the Japanese companies that used POW slave labor. Yet our own State Department has come down on the side of the Japanese companies, not our POWs. The State Department took the view that a peace treaty signed in 1951 prohibits reparations from private Japanese companies for survivors such as Frank. In fact, State Department officials have submitted statements to the court in support of the view of these Japanese companies.

Imagine our own State Department coming down on the side of the Japanese companies, not the side of our POWs. I don't think that is right and I don't think it is fair, especially when the State Department's assertion about the treaty is inaccurate.

The State Department says the treaty signed in 1951 in San Francisco, article 14(b), exempts Japanese companies from these kinds of lawsuits. I will read the entire article 14(b):

Except as otherwise provided in the present Treaty, the

Allied Powers waive all reparations claims of the Allied

Power, other claims of the Allied Powers and their nationals

arising out of any action taken by Japan and its nationals in

the course of the prosecution of the War. . . .

It says ``except as otherwise provided in the present Treaty.'' Well, the present treaty provides in article 26:

Should Japan make a peace settlement or war claims

settlement with any State granting that State greater

advantages than those provided by the present Treaty, those

same advantages shall be extended to the parties to the

present Treaty.

What does that mean? It means article 14 says that U.S. citizens, such as Frank Exline, could not sue Mitsubishi for reparations. But article 26 says if Japan were to conclude a different agreement or arrangement with another country that is more advantageous to the nationals of that country, those same advantages apply to all the signatories of the treaty.

Guess what. We didn't know this until the year 2000 when certain documents were declassified; we did not find out that Japan had concluded a separate treaty with the Netherlands, giving the Netherlands' national citizens the right to go to court to seek reparations. Under article 26, since the Netherlands got greater advantages than those under article 14, article 26 should be extended to those in the present treaty, including the United States.

The State Department ignores this. I guess they do not want to upset Mitsubishi or some of the other large corporations in Japan. They have continued to intervene in court. The courts have come down on the side of the Japanese companies.

The amendment Senator Smith and I offered 2 years ago and adopted by the Senate and the House basically said the State Department and the Department of Justice cannot intervene in these cases anymore. They cannot use the taxpayers' money to intervene in these cases. That amendment was stripped from the conference report, I guess by the urging of the State Department.

This is why I am upset and stayed at this late hour to talk and why I will talk about it more. I did not know until yesterday that this provision was going to be slipped into the Defense appropriations bill. Otherwise, I would have been prepared with amendments of my own, amendments that this Senate adopted 2 years ago.

It is not right. First, it was not right for Japan and these private companies to use United States POWs as slave laborers. There is a book that describes the torture and what they went through working for private companies as slave laborers. It is not right they were treated that way.

Second, it was not right that the United States concluded a treaty that said you can never seek compensation from these companies. That is the treaty we concluded in 1951. But there was an escape clause that said if Japan concluded a treaty with another country more advantageous to that country, then those same rights would accrue to our citizens. But that was kept under seal from 1951 until the year 2000. Then we found out that article 26 applied and that our former POWs, used as slave laborers, should have the right to go to court to seek compensation.

I am not saying they would have gotten it. At least they could have gone to court to press their rights, to exercise their rights to seek compensation.

What the amendment tonight did is it said now American taxpayers are going to pay them, American tax payers are now going to pay $10,000 to each of these former POWs who are dying every day because of old age and infirmities. Why should the American taxpayer pay them?

These Japanese companies have a lot of money. A lot of the money they have was made on the backs of slave laborers during World War II, and these companies still exist today. That is why I found the inclusion of this amendment so offensive. It is a slap in the face to these former POWs, these slave laborers, saying: We are going to give you $10,000; now shut up.

I understand there was a previous amendment that would have given $30,000 or $20,000 to the widows. That was taken away. I understand it is only $10,000 now. Not only is that a slap in the face, but it is a slap in the face to the U.S. taxpayer, that somehow our taxpayers have to pay for what these Japanese companies did during World War II.

So this is not the last I will have to say about this. I will seek other avenues and other venues, bills coming across the floor of the Senate, to make sure our POWs have the right to seek compensation from these private companies. If the Dutch could get it done, if they had the right to do it, then our American citizens ought to have that same right under article 26 of the treaty of 1951. So while this amendment may have been adopted, I will seek other avenues, as I said, later on. And I will ask for record votes on it because Senators voted on it 2 years ago and House Members voted on it 2 years ago overwhelmingly. Maybe it is time to express, again, our displeasure at the State Department for what they have been doing, for interfering with the rights of our citizens to seek redress in our courts.

With that, again, I put the Senate on notice that this amendment will be coming down the pike whenever I find the first opportunity.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to support the Schumer amendment to the Defense bill regarding the development of an Iraqi police force. This is an urgent amendment--one of the most important Iraq-related amendments we have considered on the defense bill.

The Schumer amendment will focus the administration's attention on the domestic security issue in Iraq that threatens American servicemen and women, other Americans and foreigners now in Iraq, and the Iraqi people.

One of the reasons we went to war in Iraq was to liberate the Iraqi people. The military campaign was named, ``Operation Iraqi Freedom.'' Again and again, from the President on down, we have been told that we acted on behalf of the Iraqi people.

We all witnessed the scenes of jubilation at the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime. Time and again, the administration has told us that we have restored freedom to the Iraqi people.

We all hope this is ultimately true. But the truth today is very different for women in Iraq and particularly in Baghdad.

Yeserday, Human Rights Watch released a report detailing reports of rape, assault, and kidnapping of women and girls in Baghdad. The report cites 25 credible allegations of rape and abduction since the fall of Saddam Hussein. It is believed that the number of rapes and sexual assaults in Baghdad is far higher. Women are discouraged from reporting the crime and face social isolation and even ``honor killings'' by other family members for being violently victimized.

Yesterday's New York Times contains a disturbing article about the dangers confronting women in Baghdad. I ask unanimous consent to have the article, ``Rape (And the Silence About It) Haunts Baghdad,'' printed in the Record.

[From the New York Times, July 16, 2003]

Rape (and Silence About It) Haunts Baghdad

(By Neela Banerjee)

Baghdad, Iraq, July 15.--In her loose black dress, gold

hairband and purple flip-flops, Sanariya hops from seat to

seat in her living

room like any lively 9-year-old. She likes to read. She wants

to be a teacher when she grows up, and she says Michael, her

white teddy bear, will be her assistant.

But at night, the memory of being raped by a stranger seven

weeks ago pulls her into its undertow. She grows feverish and

has nightmares, her 28-year-old sister, Fatin, said. She

cries, ``Let me go!'' ``I am afraid of the gangsters,''

Sanariya whispered in the twilight of her hallway. ``I feel

like they are killing me in my nightmares. Every day, I have

these nightmares.''

Since the end of the war and outbreak of anarchy on the

capital's streets, women here have grown increasingly afraid

of being abducted and raped. Rumors swirl, especially in a

country where rape is so rarely reported.

The breakdown of the Iraqi government after the war makes

any crime hard to quantify. But the incidence of rape and

abduction in particular seems to have increased, according to

discussions with physicians, law-enforcement officials and

families involved. A new report by Human Rights Watch based

on more than 70 interviews with law-enforcement officials,

victims and their families, medical personnel and members of

the coalition authority found 25 credible reports of

abduction and sexual violence since the war. Baghdadis

believe there are far more, and fear is limiting women's role

in the capital's economic, social and political life just as

Iraq tires to rise from the ashes, the report notes.

For most Iraqi victims of abduction and rape, getting

medical and police assistance is a humiliating process.

Deeply traditional notions of honor foster a sense of shame

so strong that many families offer no consolation or support

for victims, only blame. Sanariya's four brothers and parents

beat her daily, Fatin said, picking up a bamboo slat her

father uses. The city morgue gets corpses of women who were

murdered by their relatives in so-called honor killings after

they returned from an abduction--even, in some cases, when

they had not been raped, said Nidal Hussein, a morgue nurse.

``For a woman's family, all this is worse than death,''

said Dr. Khulud Younis, a gynecologist at the Alwiyah Women's

Hospital. ``They will face shame. If a woman has a sister,

her future will be gone. These women don't deserve to be

treated like this.''

It is not uncommon in Baghdad to see lines of cars outside

girls' schools. So fearful are parents that their daughters

will be taken away that they refuse to simply drop them off;

they or a relative will stay outside all day to make sure

nothing happens.

``Women and girls today in Baghdad are scared, and many are

not going to schools or jobs or looking for work,'' said

Hanny Megally, executive director of the Middle east and

North Africa division of Human Rights Watch. ``If Iraqi women

are to participate in postwar society, their physical

security needs to be an urgent priority.''

Beyda Jafar Sadiq, 17, made the simple decision to go to

school on the morning of May 22 and never returned. Her

family has been looking for her ever since. They have

appealed to every international nongovernmental organization,

the Iraqi police and the American authorities. Her eldest

brother, Feras, 29, has crisscrossed the country, visiting

the morgue in Basra in the south, traveling to Amara and

Nasiriya on reports from acquaintances that they saw a girl

who looked like Beyda. ``I just want to find her,'' said

Beyda's mother, Zakiya Abd, her eyes swollen with grief.

``Whether she's alive or dead, I jut want to find her.

Some police in Baghdad concede that at this point, there is

little they can do to help. Their precinct houses were

thoroughly looted after the war. Despite promises from the

American authorities, Baghdad police still lack uniforms

weapons, communications and computer equipment and patrol

cars. ``We used to patrol all the time before the war,'' said

a senior officer at the Aadimiya precinct house. ``Now,

nothing, and the criminals realize their is no security on

the streets.''

The Human Rights Watch report alleges that sometimes when

women try to report a rape or families ask for help in

finding abducted women, they are turned away by Iraqi police

officers indifferent to the crimes. Some law-enforcement

officials insist abduction and rape have not increased, while

other officials and many medical personnel disagree. Bernard

R. Kerik, a former New York City police commissioner and now

an adviser to the Interior Ministry, told of recently firing

a precinct chief when he learned that the official had failed

to pursue a family's report of their missing 16-year-old

daughter. ``The biggest part of the issue is a culture that

precludes people from reporting,'' Mr. Kerik said. ``It

encourages people not to report.''

If an Iraqi woman wants to report a rape, she has to travel

a bureaucratic odyssey. She first has to go to the police for

documents that permit her to get a forensic test. That test

is performed only at he city morgue. The police take a

picture of the victim and stamp it and then stamp her arm.

That is so no one else goes in her place and says that she

was raped, that she lost her virginity,'' said Ms. Hussein,

the nurse. At the morgue, a committee of three male doctors

performs a gynecological examination on the victim to

determine if there was sexual abuse. The doctors are

available only from 8:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. If a victim

arrives at any other time, she has to return the next day,

without washing away any physical evidence. Hospitals can

check victims only for broader trauma, like contusions and

broken bones.

Dr. Younis said she had seen more rape cases in the months

after the war than before. Yet even when women come to the

hospital with injuries that are consistent with rape, they

often insist something else happened. A 60-year-old woman

asserted that she had been hit by a car. The mother of a 6-

year-old girl begged the doctor to write a report saying that

her daughter's hymen had been ruptured because she fell on a

sharp object, a common lie families tell in the case of rape,

Dr. Younis said. Shame and fear compel the lies, Dr. Younis

said. ``A woman's father or brother, they feel it is their

duty to kill her'' if she has been raped, Dr. Younis said.

``It is the tribal law. They will get only six months

in prison and then they are out.''

Sanariya's family took her to a doctor three days after her

attack only because the bleeding had not stopped. She had

been sitting on the stairs at about 4 p.m. on May 22 when an

armed man dragged her into an abandoned building next door.

He shot at neighbors who tried to help the girl. He fled when

she began screaming during the assault.

Her mother refuses to let her outside now to play. Fatin

lied to her family and said an operation had been done to

restore Sanariya's hymen. But when her eldest brother, Ahmed,

found out otherwise, he wanted to kill Sanariya, Fatin said.

Out of earshot of her family, Sanariya said she feels no

better now, two months after the attack. ``I don't sleep at

night,'' she said in the hallway. ``I don't sleep.''

The article describes a 9-year-old girl who wakes up screaming, ``Let me go!'' This is a 9-year old girl whose life has been forever changed by unimaginable violence. She says in the article, ``I am afraid of the gangsters. I feel like they are killing me in my nightmares. Every day, I have these nightmares.''

The story of this young girl--one of too many stories--ought to be enough to focus the Congress and the administration on the urgency of the domestic security situation in Iraq.

Have we restored freedom to the Iraqi people when women and girls live in fear of abduction, rape, and murder?

Have we restored freedom to the Iraqi people when women are denied participation in a new Iraqi government and economy because their physical security is threatened every time they go out alone? Have we restored freedom to the Iraqi people when 9-year-old girls are victimized in the most horrifying way?

I want to share with the Senate a passage from the summary of the Human Rights Watch report titled, ``Climate of Fear: Sexual Violence and Abduction of Women and Girls in Baghdad.''

The summary reads:

Many of the problems in addressing sexual violence and

abduction against women and girls derive from the U.S.-led

coalition forces and civilian administration's failure to

provide public security in Baghdad. The public security

vacuum in Baghdad has heightened the vulnerability of women

and girls to sexual violence and abduction. The police force

is considerably smaller and more poorly managed when compared

to prior to the war. There is limited police street presence;

fewer resources available to police to investigate; little if

any record keeping; and many complaints are lost. Many

hospitals and the forensic institute are unable to operate

twenty-four hours a day as they did before the war, thus

preventing women from obtaining medical treatment and the

forensic examinations necessary to document sexual violence

in a timely manner.

The summary concludes with the following,

At the time of writing, plans for Iraq's reconstruction are

taking shape and rights of women and girls are at stake. It

is essential that all parties involved in these plans address

the state's inadequate protection of the rights of women and

girls. Those involved in the reconstruction process should

ensure that any existing and new trends toward treating women

and girls unequally before the law and discouraging women and

girls from reporting sexual violence, or punishing women and

girls for being the victims of sexual violence are countered.

We all know that our troops are faced with dangerous resistance throughout Iraq. Just yesterday, our military leaders acknowledged that we were facing a guerrilla warfare campaign of resistance. We know that our troops are serving honorably in a tremendously difficult environment. All of America is proud of our all volunteer force now serving in Iraq and the region.

Despite the efforts of U.S. personnel, we have not adequately addressed the domestic security crisis in Iraq. We cannot ignore that women and young girls are being victimized with terrible consequences. These crimes do not just affect individual women but the way women are viewed and the role they will play in a new Iraq.

We cannot be silent about the abuse and violence that has come to women

and girls in liberated Iraq. The Schumer amendment is our opportunity today to tell the administration that we will not tolerate silence on the treatment of women and girls in Iraq.

Mr. President, I commend the Senator from New York for bringing this issue to the Senate for the reasons he stated in order to allow us to know when our troops are going to be home. But, as I mentioned, I add another dimension to why it is so important to put a police force and have a trained police force in Iraq and on the ground there.

I would recommend to all of my colleagues that they take the time to pick up the New York Times from yesterday and read the article I referred to, which is a front page article: ``Rape (And Silence About It) Haunts Baghdad.'' I will read from the beginning of that article:

In her loose black dress, gold hairband and purple flip-

flops, Sanariya hops from seat to seat in her living room

like any lively 9-year-old. She likes to read. She wants to

be a teacher when she grows up, and she says Michael, her

white teddy bear, will be her assistant.

But at night, the memory of being raped by a stranger seven

weeks ago pulls her into its undertow. She grows feverish and

has nightmares, her 28-year-old sister, Fatin, said. She

cries, ``Let me go!''

``I am afraid of the gangsters,'' [she says].

Every one of our colleagues should read the Human Rights Watch report that has just been released titled ``Climate of Fear, Sexual Violence and Abduction of Women and Girls in Baghdad.'' That report says that many of the problems in addressing sexual violence and abduction that are increasing in Iraq against women and girls derived from the United States-led coalition force's and civilian administration's failure to provide public security in Baghdad.

We went to war in Iraq. We have heard everyone say it was to restore freedom. Let's make sure the young girls in Iraq have that security and that freedom as well. They do not have it today. The amendment by the Senator from New York puts us on track. We need to follow this in Iraq. I commend the Senator for the amendment and I thank the manager of the bill for accepting it.

Mr. President, tonight the United States Senate accepted an amendment that I wrote with the distinguished senior Senator from West

Virginia, Mr. Byrd, to require accountability and independent oversight on the ``contracts for reconstruction and other services in Iraq that are funded in whole or in part with funds that are made available by the Department of Defense.''

This requirement is long overdue.

Too much money is moving right now out of public coffers into private hands without adequate assurance that those hands have won the contracts fairly. Suffice it to say, the sums of money involved are staggering. The latest issue of Newsweek magazine says:

$1 billion a week, and that's the lowside. So much for

``self-sustaining'' reconstruction.

The head of Iraq's State oil marketing organization thinks ``the United States is dreaming if it believes it will be able to finance the reconstruction with oil money alone.''

I was particularly troubled several weeks ago because, in the New York Times magazine, there was a feature length article describing the letting of a multibillion-dollar oil field contract to Kellogg, Brown and Root. That contract was sole source, meaning that Kellogg, Brown won it without having to compete at all. But now it appears that Kellogg, Brown and Root actually developed the Army's plan for the oil field restoration effort, and then was awarded the contract to carry out the plan, almost automatically.

I think it is important to be clear. This process essentially allowed an incumbent contractor to identify the criteria for a multibillion- dollar contract and virtually ensured that it would be awarded the contract without competition. The inside track doesn't peter out there. Under the auspices of an even larger, incredibly lucrative contract with the Army, Kellogg, Brown seems to have written the Army's so- called contingency plan for rebuilding Iraq. If the news reports are correct, then the potential for sole-source custom-crafted contracts is practically guaranteed by Kellogg, Brown's agreement.

The Department of Defense recently announced that it is going to go back and solicit bidding for the oil field contracts. So, in a sense, that ends the original controversy, the original contract that I was so concerned about with Kellogg, Brown and Root. But the American people deserve to know whether, in reletting this contract, the Department of Defense has finally acknowledged a problem with the original agreement and the contract processes that are being used today. The American people deserve to know whether the Department of Defense, on a regular basis, is letting other contracts to other companies in this fashion. The American people deserve to know whether the Department of Defense intends to continue this practice where it has not yet been discovered.

If individual contractors are customarily setting the criteria for the work they plan to pursue, it seems to me there are serious conflict-of-interest issues that the Department of Defense should be working immediately to root out.

When you consider the Kellogg, Brown and Root contracts are so-called cost-plus contracts, this arrangement becomes even more unacceptable. Cost-plus lets companies spend what they think is necessary, and after that they get to tack on a percentage fee to make a profit. The more taxpayer dollars the company spends, the more profit they bring home. In effect, these contracts send out a message that the Treasury is open. If you are wasteful and inefficient, don't sweat it because the taxpayer is just going to pick up the bills.

A number of Iraqi reconstruction contracts, not just the Kellogg, Brown contract, have been designed in this way. If the Defense Department is going to spend my constituents' money in this manner without asking for a competitive bid, my constituents deserve to know why.

I have just been having community, townhall meetings in a number of our small, rural communities. I was recently in Gold Beach, OR, at a townhall meeting. Folks there were talking about the difficulty they face getting money for dredging, which is critically important. It is the lifeblood of these small, rural communities on the Oregon coast. They have to battle for every dime in order to get the funds for dredging. I can tell you my constituents in Gold Beach, Coos Bay, Pendleton, and Portland--across the State of Oregon--are saying there is no place for waste. With respect to these Iraqi reconstruction contracts and various other contracts with Iraq, they want to make sure that not only is there no waste, but there should not be any possibility for impropriety.

I understand that in some cases, there may be valid reasons for the awarding of contracts that seem suspect to the untrained eye. One explanation I have heard repeatedly is the need to award some contracts quickly. Another is the need for security clearances. But I cannot imagine that the need to move quickly is a valid justification for ignoring experience as a criterion, nor does a security clearance seem necessary for rebuilding a sewer system.

As a Member of the Intelligence Committee, I had thought these arguments were pretty shaky before. I said then, and I will repeat it tonight. I believe the Department of Defense and other agencies involved in reconstruction would have a more open process and greater credibility if they knew they had to face the public on these important issues.

The fact is: The Pentagon has kept the American taxpayer in the dark. The American people at present do not know how the select group of contractors was chosen, how much the reconstruction of Iraq will cost or how long it will take.

Tonight, with the adoption of the legislation authored with Senator Byrd, we are going to be in a position to finally get on top of those issues.

I want to express my appreciation to a number of the Senators on the Appropriations Committee, particularly Senator Stevens, the distinguished chairman of the full committee, and Senator Byrd, the ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Committee, and the distinguished subcommittee chair of that committee, for working closely with me and my colleagues on this legislation.

Recently, the New York Times reported the current supply of about $7 billion for rebuilding Iraq includes $1.7 billion for Iraqi assets frozen in U.S. banks, $900 million found hiding in Iraq, and about $1.6 billion from Iraqi oil sold before the war. The United Nations is holding about $1 billion for development, and Congress has already appropriated $2.4 billion for reconstruction contracts. The occupation administrator is reportedly seeking about $6 billion for the remainder of this year, and ``the amount for 2004 will be considerably higher.'' Independent sources familiar with Iraq have put the price tag at upwards of $100 billion.

The Pentagon just last week informed Congress that the monthly cost of military operations is really twice what they predicted in April, or nearly $4 billion. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld called this a ``burn rate'' of $1 billion a week. My question then becomes, Will the administration have to effect a similar doubling of the projected reconstruction costs? What sort of a ``burn rate'' can the American people expect on the reconstruction side of the ledger?

We have seen the costs go up and up with respect to military operations. Suffice it to say, I think there is every reason to believe that will be the case with respect to reconstruction contracts as well.

What Senator Byrd and I have said--and we are very pleased the Senate on a bipartisan basis has accepted our amendment--is it is time for some accountability, and it is time for real and independent oversight with respect to these contracts.

What is needed are clear processes and standards for designing and awarding contracts. What is needed are clear criteria for justifying sole-source contracts. What is needed are mechanisms to provide independent oversight over contractors. What is needed are policies to prevent conflicts of interest. What is needed are policies to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. What is needed are ways to assure the percentage of profits is determined for cost-fixed-fee contracts in a way that protects our taxpayers. Finally, what is needed is a list of all contracts for reconstruction and other services in Iraq and their overall expected costs and duration.

This week the civil administrator Paul Bremer said that just over the next 6 months Iraqi oil revenues will be $2 billion short of what will be needed to finance occupation and reconstruction. He admitted that reconstruction

of Iraq is ``not going to be self-financing.'' Newsweek magazine called these numbers ``misleading.''

What this means, in plain English, is that U.S. taxpayers are going to get stuck funding the difference for a number of months and for the foreseeable future.

We believe the pattern of secretive and closed bidding for these construction contracts is unacceptable. It seems to me the American people have a right to hear if there are reasons for sole-source and invitation-only contracts for these projects. If something is amiss in the Iraqi reconstruction contracting process, then the oversight and the accountability--as Senator Byrd and I have called for in the legislation accepted tonight--is going to bring that to light. It is high time Congress and the American people arrive at fair judgments about these difficult issues with respect to funding the reconstruction of Iraq. The American people deserve real accountability at a time when we need the money here at home for our schools, for our health care facilities, for our roads, and for the critical needs of strengthening our economy.

I think it is a significant step the Senate has taken. It assures this will now be an effort to establish true oversight and accountability over the billions of dollars that are being spent now and that will be spent with respect to reconstructing Iraq and other services in that country.

I thank Senator Byrd for his patience and assistance in this legislation.

Again, I express my appreciation to Chairman Stevens for helping us to draft this in a way that will win bipartisan support.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the amendment I offer today, entitled the Resolution of Claims of American POWs of the Japanese Act of 2003, is important because it recognizes the struggle to compensate American POWs once held and forced into slave labor for private Japanese companies during World War II.

For those of my colleagues who aren't aware of what our valiant soldiers endured, please let me enlighten you.

On April 9, 1942, Allied forces in the Philippines were forced to surrender Bataan to the Japanese. Ten thousand to 12,000 American soldiers were forced to march some 60 miles in broiling heat. We have all heard of this deadly trek, known as the Bataan Death March.

What most people do not realize is, after a lengthy internment under horrific conditions, thousands of these POWs were shipped to Japan in the holds of freighters known as ``Hell Ships.'' Once in Japan, many of these POWs were forced into slave labor for private Japanese steel mills and other private companies until the end of the war. During the war, over 27,465 Americans were captured and interned by the Japanese; tragically, only 16,000 made it home.

Let me tell you about some of these brave men.

At our Judiciary Committee hearing a few years ago, we heard from some of these remarkable veterans who put a human face on this tragic part of history. They are all heroes.

I remember so well Mr. Bigelow, who, during his internment lost his leg from a mining accident and the lack of proper medical treatment. At a height of 6 feet, 4 inches, Mr. Bigelow weighed less than 100 pounds at the time of his release. Tragically, he died last week--- without ever receiving the recognition that he deserved, recognition that we as a body can give him.

Mr. President, how many more have to die before we finally pay them the tribute they deserve?

At our hearing, we heard how the POWs stuck together and helped each other make it through each day and endured frequent beatings for doing so.

We heard how Mr. Tenney and others kept their spirits up by entertaining their buddies and trading with Japanese guards for a few meager supplies.

We heard how brave men like Terrence Kirk built a makeshift camera out of a stolen x-ray plate to document the condition of dying POWs so they would not be forgotten.

Let me say to the veterans who have shared their stories with me--and I know some of these men personally thank you. All of them are heroes for their bravery on the battlefields and in the prison camps.

They are heroes for the innumerable displays of compassion and love for their fellow man.

They are heroes for their perseverance through circumstances most of us can barely imagine.

They are living testaments to the indomitable human spirit that is the fabric of this great nation, the United States of America. Everyone here living in freedom owes them a tremendous debt of gratitude.

Unfortunately, global political and security needs of the time often overshadowed their legitimate claims for justice and they were once again asked to sacrifice for their country.

Following the end of the war, for example, our government allegedly instructed many of the POWs not to discuss their experiences and treatment. Some were even asked to sign non-disclosure agreements. Consequently, many Americans remain unaware of the atrocities that took place and the suffering our POWs endured.

Just ask the school children of today. Most know little about the Bataan Death March and nothing about the fact that our soldiers were shipped to Japan and sold as slave labor.

That is inexcusable. We must recognize their sacrifice, and the amendment I offer today supports that effort.

Through the years, various efforts have been made to offer some compensation for the POWs held in Japan.

Under the War Claims Act, our government has made meager payments of a dollar a day for missed meals and $1.50 per day for lost wages. Clearly this is inadequate.

Following the passage of a California statute extending the statute of limitations for World War II claims until 2010 and the recent litigation involving victims of Holocaust, the former POWs in Japan have attempted through the courts to seek compensation from the private companies which profited from their labor.

What role has our government played in this quest?

In the Holocaust litigation, the U.S. played a facilitating role in discussions between the German companies and the victims. The Justice Department also declined to file a statement of interest in the litigation--even when requested by the court. The efforts of the administration were entirely appropriate and the settlement was an invaluable step toward moving forward from the past.

Here, in contrast, there has been little effort by our government, through the State Department or otherwise, to help these POWs with their claims. In fact, quite the opposite has been true.

In response to a request from the court, the Justice Department actually filed a statement of interest which was very damaging to the claims of the POWs--stating in essence that their claims were barred by the 1951 Treaty of Peace with Japan and the War Claims Act. Personally, I don't think the government had the authority to waive these claims. Unbelievably, the Justice Department continues to argue in these court cases on behalf of the Japanese companies and against our POWs.

This contrasting treatment raises the legitimate questions of whether this administration has a consistent policy governing whether and how to weigh in during these World War II-era cases? From a moral perspective, the claims of those forced into labor by private German companies and private Japanese companies appear to be of similar merit, yet they have spurred different responses from the administration.

Why?

I have asked this question to the State Department, and have not received a satisfactory response.

What can the United States of America--the country these men sacrificed for--do to resolve this matter in a fair and appropriate manner?

With the help of Senator Feinstein, in 2000, we moved through the Judiciary Committee S. 1902, the Japanese Records Disclosure Act. This bill set up a commission to declassify thousands of Japanese Imperial Army records held by the U.S. government after appropriate screening for sensitive information such as that pertaining to national security.

That bill, however, was not enough. We need to do more.

The Senate attempted to fulfill our government's responsibility to these men by including a provision in S. 2549, the fiscal year 2001 Department of Defense authorization bill. This legislation would have allowed payments of a $20,000 gratuity to POWs from Bataan and Corregidor who were forced into labor. But unfortunately, the provision was stripped in conference, due in large part, I believe, to pressure from the previous Administration.

We also passed S. Con. Res. 158, a resolution at the end of the 106th Congress

which stated the moral force of the claims of the POWs and expressed the sense of the Congress that the United States government should use its best efforts to ``facilitate a dialogue'' to discuss a resolution to the claims. But this has received a less than satisfactory response from the administration.

We must ask ourselves--can Congress do more?

Can the executive branch do more?

I think so.

We must.

And it is for that reason that I am offering the Resolution of Claims of American POWs of the Japanese Act of 2003.

This legislation would show these POWs that we have not forgotten them and that we will not let them be victimized by the Japanese companies a second time.

My amendment would authorize the payment of compensation to former prisoners of war for forced labor for Japanese companies during World War II. Those surviving POWs who are still living--and there are not many--would receive $10,000. This is a mere fraction of what they truly deserve, and I intend to seek additional amounts next year to fulfill our obligation to our heroes.

Mr. President, this legislation is essential.

Congress is the last recourse for these POWs.

Instead of helping, our government has let them down. And so, if we do not stand up for them, who will?

I urge my colleagues to join with me in this effort to do what we can to show these brave POWs that their country has not forgotten them; it is the least we can do.

Mr. President, as we look at the situation in America and in the world today, we face serious challenges. Obviously, the war on terrorism is one of the most serious challenges we have had in many decades, one that is different because there are no specific battles that are won or lost. There may not be a moment when we say it is over. Because we are dealing with a moving, shadowy element that uses the most dastardly types of attacks on individuals, innocent men, women, and children.

We have seen the situation in Florida, where the people there have been hit repeatedly by hurricanes and disasters. I guess you could say in many respects these are times that try men and women's souls.

We are under attack in a lot of ways. But, also, these are the times that require a certain trumpet. We cannot have uncertainty in terms of leadership. We cannot have an uncertain trumpet. We have to have direction, strong leadership, and courage to take a stand and follow it through. That is why I am very much worried about what I see in Senator Kerry and the positions he has taken, first on one side and then the other.

I was greatly distressed last week when we had the Prime Minister of Iraq here. He is a man who is showing strength, leadership, and great courage because his life is on the line every day with repeated assassination attempts directed at him. He came here. He said: Thank you, America. He said: We are going to have elections. We are going to have peace and freedom and democracy. We chose justice and the rule of law rather than chaos and anarchy. He did a magnificent job. I was inspired by what he is doing and by his speech.

Yet Senator Kerry attacked his speech before he even left town. Where are the basic courtesies that we have in the past extended to leaders of other countries?

President Bush, on the other hand, has shown strength, leadership, and courage. He is dealing with the issues of security. People see in him and hear in his voice a determination, a commitment, that will get us through this. But Senator Kerry has been flip-flopping back and forth on Iraq for not just the campaign but actually for years, going back to 2002 where he took one position and where now, in 2003 and 2004, he has taken a different position.

On September 20, 2004, he said that our most important task is to win the war on terrorism. On March 6, 2004, he balked at calling the war on terror an actual ``war.''

On September 20 he said Iraq was a ``diversion from'' the war on terror. Yet back in December of 2003 he said that Iraq is ``critical'' to the success of the war on terror.

In September of 2004 he said the evil of Saddam was enough to justify the war. Yet before that he agreed with the administration's goal of regime change. He also said that Saddam's ``breach of international values'' was a sufficient cause of war.

In 2004 he said Saddam's ``downfall . . . has left America less secure.'' Yet in December of 2003 he questioned the judgment of those claiming Saddam's capture doesn't help American security.

The list goes on and on. I ask unanimous consent this list be printed in the Record.

But it goes beyond just the war on Iraq. What worries me is there is a pattern here, across the board, not only in that area that threatens our very security and our lives, the war on terrorism, but in area after area, issue after issue.

For instance, in 1991 Senator Kerry supported most-favored trade status for China and now he criticizes the Bush administration for trading with China.

Which is it? You cannot be for it and against it when you talk about international trade. Trade is good. America can compete. We do need to enlarge the pie. We need to make sure we have fair trade. But you cannot vote one way on trade and then be critical of it on the other side.

In October 2003, Senator Kerry called the fence that is being built in Israel for security purposes a ``barrier to peace.'' He was critical of it. Yet in February of 2004, he calls the fence a ``legitimate act of self-defense.'' You can't get into a very dangerous and sensitive situation like this and say one thing and then the other. What is it? Which is it? An uncertain trumpet takes lives.

Even in the case of eliminating the marriage penalty for the middle class, Senator Kerry said he will fight to keep the tax relief for married couples. He said Democrats fought to end the marriage penalty tax. Yet in 1998, he voted against eliminating the marriage penalty relief for married taxpayers with a combined income of less than $50,000 a year. Last week when we actually extended the elimination of that marriage penalty tax, of course, he didn't vote.

He even flip-flopped on the PATRIOT Act. The PATRIOT Act is a favorite punching bag now.

I was here when the death debate occurred. I remember the broad unanimous support involved in passing that legislation. We needed to do some things to give our law enforcement people the ability to deal with these terrorists. If you look at what has transpired since then, this great fear of having your library card checked or a ``knock in the night'' is not occurring. So he voted for it, and now he attacks the PATRIOT Act. He said:

We are a nation of laws, and liberties, not of a knock in

the night. So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft.

I think that is an unfair shot at our former colleague, the Attorney General of the United States. Again, Senator Kerry was for the Patriot Act and now he is against it.

On the gay marriage amendment, in 2002, Senator Kerry signed a letter urging the Massachusetts legislature to reject a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Yet now in 2004 he won't rule out supporting a similar amendment. Which is it? Is it one thing in Massachusetts and another here in Washington?

Also, I think when you get into other issues like the death penalty for terrorists, these are relevant issues we can't take the wrong position on. Yet, in 1996, he attacked Governor Weld of Massachusetts for supporting the death penalty for terrorists. But now he said he might support the death penalty for terrorists.

On the No Child Left Behind Act, he voted for it, and now he attacks it as a ``mockery.'' He trashed it as an ``unfunded mandate'' with ``laudable goals.''

Let me tell you that I am a son of a schoolteacher. I was in public education all my life. I didn't go to some elite school. I went to public education. I stay in touch with teachers and administrators. And they tell me it is making a difference. We have goals and challenges. Teachers are doing better, students are doing better, and the money has been going up every year.

On issue after issue, he has flip-flopped.

I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of this lengthy list be printed in the Record.